Reply With Quote
After a few drinks tonight I may join the debate.
After a few drinks tonight I may join the debate.
There is no debate
There is one side showing facts and the other side saying "so what"
I've had more than one discussion thread about this, and many other Catholic-Protestant controversies, but always with friendly Protestant posters.The Catholic resolution of this problem is the Nicene union of three hypostases (personae) in one ousion (shared essence). But you probably knew that already. The controversy at the time was considerable and also prolonged, so it's not so surprising that it still comes up. Whoever isn't a trinitarian won't be much swayed, but it's funny to me that you argue like a lumpen Protestant, coming as you do from an RC background.
As to 'worshipping' Mary, short of out and out Marionism it would seem to be of a piece with the routine veneration of saints in RC. They are not worshipped as gods, but as intercessors. You probably knew this too, didn't you?
Also, your ignorance of the trope of Christ as the new Adam and the gospels as a new covenant, is showing. For minimally conversant believers the contradiction b/w Mosaic law and the New Testament you pose doesn't withstand even momentary scrutiny, and for someone who claims to have read the bible, your apparent unfamiliarity with OT prophecy is curious to say the least. For believers, the NT is the culmination and fulfillment of the OT, not a contradiction.
A tip of my hat to the atheists like BB posing as holy doctors and teaching us all doctrine.
Bold!
Interesting to see an atheist picking up their side of the argument.
Don't get offended buddy but you facts suck.
Simply tell me why so many Christians have been willing to die for their faith.
Then tell me how many Egyptians, Assirians and all those other people from the different faiths you bring as proof, were also willing to die for their Gods.
I'm not saying this is conclusive proof of anything, but it certainly has to cause inquisitive minds to think about it . . .
Problem is those so called "facts" don't prove anything at all and when that is pointed out you keep saying "so what".
The religion chip we implant in people's brains at birth has been less effective since we outsourced production. Sometimes taking the low bid is a mistake...
.
You see...even Wilson believes.
Apparently, now he doesn't.
tonto have air to breath
food to eat
tonto not bileive in monkey
tonto know pale face GOD is above us all
him lol at non believers
tonto not proud
So, MH, any new arguments why you can prove the unprovable?
He's going to have to go in a different direction, away from trying to deny the historicity of Jesus. That may have been a hypothesis that some scholars held 50-100 years ago, but really only Robert Price is keeping that candle burning today. Everyone else is a crank. G.A. Wells even dropped the point.
To update everybody on what the thinking has been since, um, 1922, the hypothesis of pagan influences leading a splinter group of Jews into a different kind of religion without needing Jesus to exist works if evidence supports a late second- to early third-century date for most of the New Testament. This is consistent with other evidence of how long it takes for syncretic material to accrete to a religious tradition, or for a composite character to develop, or for the view of a religious "community" to be personified as a single mythical figurehead.
The hypothesis back then was at least minimally feasible since the do entary evidence to refute it was not available. It was certainly still a minority position, but a position nonetheless. However, today we have multiple New Testament papyri fragments from the mid-third century, and a handful dating as far back as A.D. 125-150. One of these fragments is from the Gospel of John, which according to biblical criticism has to be the last gospel written -- so we have do entary evidence dating back to within two generations of its traditional authorship date. So the scholarly consensus has been to push all the dates of NT authorship back close to the traditional dates of authorship, in the mid-to-late first century, with some of Paul's epistles being especially early, in the 50's and 60's.
This creates a real problem for one who wants to deny the historicity of Jesus, because now he must explain how this new religion based upon a single person pops up within 30 years of when this person supposedly lived, if that person is in fact fic ious. This goes against all other evidence of how legends and myths develop over time. To borrow from N.T. Wright, I suppose historically anything is possible, but to believe that, one must more or less believe in miracles, in which case one is on the same footing as the orthodox!
So, not only can we put aside doubts of the historicity of Jesus based on the supposed similarities of the Gospels to pagan legends on the grounds of their being specious (in the case of late 19th-/early-to-mid 20th-century obsolete scholarship) if not fraudulent (as in what one finds on the internet these days) upon close inspection, we can also dismiss these doubts based on the very early evidence of New Testament manuscripts relative to the time Jesus is supposed to have lived.
The next hypothesis to consider is whether perhaps a proto-Christianity existed much earlier than the supposed time of Jesus' life. This hypothesis presumes that the legend of Jesus was culled together from earlier Jewish, rather than pagan, material allegorically according to a Hebrew literary device called midrash. Some have guessed that some faction of the Essenes might had changed over time into something proto-Christian. This is more along the lines of what Robert Price proposes. It is not generally accepted in the academy because the differences between what is known of the Essenes and first-century Christianity are still seen as too great.
(This line of thinking is also useless for neo-atheist apologetic, since it assumes that Jesus material is drawn from the Old Testament, and orthodox Christianity itself holds that Jesus is clearly prefigured in the Old Testament. This is also why B2B's argument about the precise dating in Daniel went nowhere -- all pointing that out does to a believer is validate his belief!)
So then the conclusion of the academic consensus -- whether its members are Christians or not -- is that some kind of person named Jesus existed in Galilee in the early first century, from a humble family, taught, had followers, and was executed. His followers worshipped him after his death.
--------------------------------------
Since I understand what the state of scholarship is, this is why I refuted MiamiHeat's argument about Jesus parallels to Horus, etc., and not his point about the pillar of cloud/fire or baseline bum's arguments. baseline bum argues against belief based upon things like theodicy and the accounts of God's behavior in the Old Testament. The question of the pillar of fire and how that impacts Old Testament hermeneutics is legitimate. The philosophical question of how a loving God can allow evil in the world, or can do things like order genocide against the Amalekites and then even get angry with Saul when he does not in fact kill everyone and everything, needs to be considered by people who claim to believe.
Mendacious bull masquerading as facts does not need to be considered.
If there is a God
Why does the God let part of americans discriminate against Asian?
You may as well believe that martians created the Earth. You can't disprove that either. In fact, martians being the genesis of life on earth is much more likely than anything the Bible promotes. I look at facts and evidence and make logical deductions based upon them.
Watching a movie or reading a book or website doesn't always count as facts.
After all they have JFK on film getting shot in the head but has it proved anything? People to this day are still debating on who wanted him dead and why it took place.
How old are you? The reason I ask I remember when I was around 20ish I went through a period in my life where nothing made sense and i was doubting everything. I did not believe in any religion and I questioned everything.
I would wait until your around 30 something and see how you feel then. I have no problem with people who don't believe in any GOD.
I do have a problem when someone who claims to be a scientist tells me the earth is Billions of years old. And that we evolved from molecules and gasses that were floating around in space. Like anyone on this planet has the right to say what was going on 10,000 years ago, and yet they want to say what took place Billions of years ago? just because they tested a bone they found, or a fossil? it's all speculation. And therefore is no different then people who believe in a GOD.
What I can believe in is the complicated designs I see in the plant and animal life. Not to mention the Human eye.
Even the most advanced artificial imaging system in the world remains extremely simple and primitive compared to the eye.
When we think of the effort and knowledge that has been put into developing these artificial imaging systems, we can get a grasp on the superior creation that has gone into designing the eye.
Richard Dawkins, the hero of atheists, and author of The God Delusion, readily admitted in his 2004 PBS interview that evolution hasn’t been observed and all the evidence supporting evolution is cir stantial evidence. Dawkins emphasizes that there is Huge quan ies of cir stantial evidence.
Below is a complete unedited transcript of what professor Dawkins said about this:
BILL MOYERS: Is evolution a theory, not a fact?
RICHARD DAWKINS: Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.
MOYERS: What do you mean It’s been observed?
DAWKINS: The consequences of. It is rather like a detective coming on a murder after the scene. And you… the detective hasn’t actually seen the murder take place, of course. But what you do see is a massive clue. Now, any detective…
MOYERS: Cir stantial evidence.
DAWKINS: Cir stantial evidence, but masses of cir stantial evidence. Huge quan ies of cir stantial evidence…………
There you have it – professor Richard Dawkins, the atheists' number one hero, admits that evolution has never been observed and is supported only by cir stantial evidence.
I suppose GOD created the guns and the bullets?
Your the typical cop out! You want to blame GOD for everything.
Your worthless and lazy if you need a baby sitter to make sure you have a good life. I can't stand people who can't grow a back bone and take responsibility for there own actions.
So you really just want to be a puppet? You want GOD to pull all the strings?
Have him find your keys when your late for work? Have him rescue trapped miners in a cave. There is a baby missing in NY, not to mention the coach of a softball team praying for a win? I need him to pay my rent.
where does it end?
The earth wasn't always this way. At one time there was no Cancer,wars,hate, and sin. It wasn't until man let temptation get the best of him and now we are paying the price.
Kinda like when your friends come over and they can't surf the www for porn because your parents put some sort of Nanny software on your PC.
At first they let you surf anywhere you wanted but you took advantage of it and now you pay the price.
The creator did his part, gave us the earth the air water and food. It's up to our ignorant ass to make something of it or destroy it.
Pffaw. The design of the human eye is pathetic. Needlessly complex, needlessly large, fragile, requires multiple other systems to support it which add weight, requiring then other systems to deal with the extra weight in the head...Even the most advanced artificial imaging system in the world remains extremely simple and primitive compared to the eye.
When we think of the effort and knowledge that has been put into developing these artificial imaging systems, we can get a grasp on the superior creation that has gone into designing the eye.
The only way the eye would have gotten DoD approval is as a political favor...
grown adults that believe a man was living in the belly of a WHALE! Silly rabbits, trips are for kids.
Think about it. If you can get people to believe that, getting them to believe that Iraq had WMD's was a breeze.
The Christian bible says the world was flat. You know the bible God wrote. Or maybe just maybe MAN wrote this because he believed at the time the world was flat or perhaps it was 6,000 years ago. Is that called faith?
This has to be the most ridiculous thing you've ever posted on this forum.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
